"Suppose (McCain) did write these letters for Paxson -- which he may have..."

May have written letters for Paxson? May have...?

Aside from attempting to downplay McCain's efforts on behalf of Paxson, Brooks' point about McCain batting 99% is specious. First, we don't know what else McCain has done on behalf of people for his lobbyist "friends". Secondly, McCain is the self-styled reformer...the anti-lobbyist. McCain's a fraud...

McCain's a fraud...

From listening to the media, you'd think you're the only one who sees this as the REAL story here. On every show I watched Sunday morning, the NYT story was portrayed as nothing more than a "tabloid style" sexual scandal smear designed to ruin McCain.

I still think the sexual aspect of the story is extremely important too...but mainly because we're talking about a purported sexual relationship with a lobbyist. I don't know if McCain was having sex with Vicki Iseman or not...but I'm inclined to believe he was just on what little info has come forth. McCain has long been reputed to be a womanizer.,,and from I understand the culture in Washington is such that willing young women are simply another perk of office. Would an attractive young Washington female lobbyist trade sex for favors? I would tend to believe any suggestion of greed on the part of a lobbyist.

One last thing, if McCain and Iseman were doing the big nasty then I would think that confirmation will come out. Iseman reportedly talked too much about her influence with McCain...that's why John Weaver ran her off (which she still denies). If she did it with McCain how much do you want to bet she told someone about it? Iseman may have her own Linda Tripp. One thing for sure though is that you know reporters are crawling all over this story to get the dirt on McCain. And that couldn't make me happier... 

Me either – I’ve been thinking to myself “just wait… just wait…” for 4 days now. Especially when I see the angelic outrage of the right-wing pundits, as if “improper sexual conduct” is a preposterous thought in the Republican Party.:)

Wow, are reporters "crawling all over this story?" Or are their editors (via the ownership) telling them to back off? It's possible sex, mainstream media, it's your favorite, number one topic. And she's much younger than Grandpa Johnny.

I think there are some reporters who are probably crawling all over this to get more of the story out. I'm sure there are some newspapers and news organizations that. for whatever reasons, would prefer to see it go away. The Times story is so incomplete in many ways that it begs for more digging. I suspect this story has not been exhausted just yet.

Brooks really doesn't really understand the case but he's offering an opinion. This is the best a conservative pundit can do?

Where do I sign up?

BROOKS: He was chairman of the Commerce Committee. Suppose he did write these letters for Paxson -- which he may have -- I don't really understand the case. The Commerce Committee is one of the most lobbied committees on Capitol Hill. If he only wrote two letters out of all that time, that means he was batting 99 percent.

johnny_nyc: Hey if we were playing baseball batting .300 is pretty good isn't it?

 I think he can be nicely beaten about the head and shoulders on the lobbist issue. More like issues, considering the number of them working for him. I'd like to see it.

DNC is making noises about him trying to duck out of going with public financing. Something about seeing him in court.

Less lovely, Ralph....He's baaack.

Why is David Brooks so ubiquitous on the TV? He's no intellectual wonder by any stretch and he often offers just some type of shiny, BS type sunshine up the butt. 

sunshine up the butt- wasn't that a John Denver hit, JuliaJayne?

For anybody that hasn't checked out the right-wing radio spin on this story,it's as bad as racism-projection angle that has people supporting Obama specifically because he's Black.

The conventional wisdom on this McCain bit seesm to be that anybody who gives any credence to the sexual element of it must assume that a woman can't get by in Washington without sleeping her way up.

Seems to be the wingnut trend, if you want an easy fight, argue against your own ideas.

"...a woman can't get by in Washington without sleeping her way up."???

Remove woman from the equation and rephrase it in terms of whether a lobbyist in Washington would commit an improper act for career advancement. I got hammered pretty good by another poster who accused me of suggesting that an attractive woman cannot succeed without sleeping her way to the top. That's not what I said or meant. But I'd believe practically anything about a young, ambitious female Washington lobbyist and an old powerful Senator who has a reputation for going after women...particularly when memebers of his own staff said they had to run her off to protect him from himself. 

Hey Irony, I've just heard it being dribbled around by the media, I guess it's squirmed its way here already.

It's hard to understand the fascination of our citizenry, or is it our media, with f---ing as a transitive or intransitive activity.  Outside of his wife, should anyone really care if McCain was (transitively) shtupping Miss Iseman or (intransitively) getting shtupped by her?

The issue, it seems to me, is what motivated McCain to address the FCC.  Were his activities on behalf of Paxton motivated by his interest in improving the public access to information or were they motivated by something else?  It would seem to me from watching the development of news media over the last two decades that our representatives have not been overly concerned with the independence of our media and the public's right to "fair and balanced" reporting.  To the contrary, the current administration appears to have done everything in its power to make our free press--especially radio and tv news networks--a kind of ministry of misinformation.  In this context, McCain's efforts are hardly stellar.

Sunshine up the butt - Don't "David Brooks" me, Bro. His name is now a verb. 

TAD:

You've got it exactly correct: For the past two decades, Republicans/NeoCons have done everything in their power (and it has been considerable power in these last two decades) to co-opt all MEDIA in the hands of a very few owners (CONSERVATIVE, Republican-backing owners), and to encourage MEDIA coverage that is propagandistic bias towards the RIGHT.

This sets up a curious "defense" for said Republicans, working busily to corrupt our "free press".

Are they fascists, because they have been corrupted by the LOBBIESTS for media concerns, doing the bidding of media moguls in return for cash, perks, and sexual favors bestowed by very special "lobbiests"?

Or, were they fascists to start with, and so all that cash, those perks, and sexual favors "did not influence them", because they were prone to destroying integrity, democracy, and liberty ANYWAY?

And make no mistake: CORRUPTING our free press is a DESTRUCTION of liberty for the American People.

So, the DEFENSE is that they were corrupt fascists all by themselves, so they could not have been swayed and "bought" by lobbiests. Don't know about YOU, but this DEFENSE is the same as a hitman claiming he wasn't INFLUENCED by the "contract", that he hated a guy and killed him simply because he didn't LIKE him, and the CONTRACT money didn't cause his action. Guess what? It's still MURDER. 

Very true. If anyone is left to write the political history of this era, the collapse of the Free Press will be the dominant theme.

I must admit that I was partially wrong about this story; I predicted that it would just go away in a couple of days. Alas, they are still talking about it... but not the story inself, but whether the NYT should have reported it. The Press is covering its favorite subject.... the Press.

Meanwhile, I noticed that the bombshell lobbed into the public discourse last night by Sixty Minutes is not receiving much attention on the morning talk shows... unless they covered it while I was in the shower.

Apparently they've decided that the Bush Administration's commandeering of the Justice Department to perform political hatchet jobs for the GOP is not worthy of their time. Apparently Congress issued subpoenas to the White House people involved, but they refused to comply. WTF? Why is this not a story? Can you imagine the hysteria among the bobbleheads if the Clinton White House had done this?

And, by the way, I've noticed that the Sunday program "This Week at War" on CNN has been changed to "This Week in Politics". I guess the war isn't a story anymore, either.

I always wondered that. If a "civilian" gets subpoened by Congress, wouldn't we be compelled to appear in front of whatever panel that would be empowered? And if we didn't, wouldn't we get tossed into the clink? Why is it then, that the White House cronies, even though they don't work there any longer, can just skip out on it like nothing even matters? So if I ever get called to testify in court, and subpoenas are issued for me to appear, and I don't want to go, should I just claim executive privelege and I'm sure that the courts will allow me to get away with it. Jeesh.

You're right. Clinton's staff was subpoened, and they appeared when they were required to. Don't get me wrong, Clinton's White House counsel fought it for a little while, but eventually, if they had to appear for a deposition, they appeared. Same for the President of the United States. He had to appear as well.

I always try to turn this around on republicans, when they tell me that their guys don't have to testify in front of Congress. I ask them, "What if Hillary were in office, and Congress wanted to hear from members of her staff. Would you feel the same way?" Normal answer I get is, "Well, that would be different." Different how exactly?

Right. I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. I truly believe that, once all the dust has settled, it will be shown that this has been the most corrupt administration in modern history. The so-called "values voters" who put this moron in office should be outraged that they've been so thoroughly duped. But will they? I doubt it... no matter how much evidence is shoved under their noses, they'll refuse to admit that they got fooled again.

Tip of the iceberg? My thought exactly. There is no telling what other Bush/Cheney secret programs or events the next President will discover when he/she takes office. I suspect that after Bush leaves office some former members of the Bush administration will start bearing their souls in tell-all memoirs. However, you can be assured that Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. will quickly trash anyone who dares to set history straight. All I know is that the moment the new President, whoever that will be, is sworn into office I plan to celebrate all night that Bush/Cheney are gone.

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

I tire for all the revision, and distortion the pundits spew. Brooks has swung in the wind so much he can't tell if he's coming or going. History is whatever the Talking Points of the Day say it is, so it's not surprising to see a "prominant" Republican pundit on the record from all sides of an argument!

I tire of having to disseminate all the news I read, and see on television, or hear on the radio. I knew from years of reading papers from all over America, overseas, and paying attention to the events of the day to see the motives, and slants in a story, but we never had to guard against an report filled with falsehoods, lies, and distortions to sway toward an political agenda so outwardly apparrent.

Blatant, as though they don't care their calling all of America to stupid to believe their own eyes, ears, and recollections!

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

This is my second attempt to post on this issue i don't know whats up with that! The hyprocisy on this to me is so telling.  Can you imagine if this story had broke about the Clintons or Obama? The image of John McCain is all fluff and smoke and mirrors, yet the media despite flip-flop after flip-flop, pander after pander, tell us to ignore the man behind the curtains and just watch the screen. "Don't believe your lying eyes," they seem to be telling us. They releave themselves on us, then tell us it's rain! Fiction becomes "FACT" when spoken about any Democrat, facts become points of view when it involves repubs.  Despite every republican offering nothing but more of the same and despite the overwhelming majority of Americans screaming "OH lord, Pleazzzze no more of the same!" Mr. "hundred years war"McCain is packaged to us as "straight' shooter, a real guy and he comes with tax cuts too! Maybe there has been but I've never seen such a disconnect between what the people feel is important and needed and what the politicians and media give us. I agree with Dangrady, they believe we are stupid, but this election we will see who gets the last laugh; the problem is, the consequences of a McCain presiency is no laughing matter. 

The fact is that McCain is either an outright liar (in his news conference) or a perjurer in a sworn deposition.  The evidence is irrefutable:  http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505

 

I can't prove he had sex with that woman - yet.  Unlikely that he did it publicly - but we all know, don't we?  It isn't about the sex - it's about the bribe of sex - and the hypocrisy.   I would love to see a compilation of the sanctimonious crap he spewed during the Lewinski affair.

 

Still, I hope the sex is proved - because the Republican electorate is a lot more sensitive to philandering - and it's easier for them to understand - than another corruption case against one of the "Keating 5."   If it isn't proved, the MSM will do their best (as they currently are) to pretend that it is a)  all about the sex and b)  there wasn't any.